3 ms·
Yes but ghost shift goods are counterfeits unless they are free of any logos and other intellectual property. The first sale doctrine doesn’t apply because it w
by traek 8y ago
Yes but ghost shift goods are counterfeits unless they are free of any logos and other intellectual property. The first sale doctrine doesn’t apply because it was never purchased from the IP owner at any point in the line.
If I have a factory in Bangladesh print some t-shirts with the Nike logo on them, I wouldn’t be able to sell them (at least in the US) because I didn’t get permission from Nike, which owns the rights to their logo. It’s the same thing here. It doesn’t matter if the factory happens to also produce legitimate Nike t-shirts.
- edoo 8y agoI believe you are trying to classify what they bought as something it isn't (ghost shift goods). They legitimately bought the surplus from an authorized retailer. If you go buy a bunch of Nike shirts from a Nike store they cannot stop you from selling them on eBay or Amazon (at least legally). At best the shoe company could have sued their authorized retailers for the bulk sale if it violated a contract. Amazon happily complied with an illegal request to restrain trade causing damages to a small company. The lawsuit would have been huge.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Spooky23 8y agoNo, the mandatory binding arbritration would be very small.
- edoo 8y agoI'm asking around about that. In a simple contract dispute I believe you are right. If you have damages due to criminal activity it may not fall under the terms of a simple contract dispute.
- traek 8y agoThat's true, I assumed from your original comment where you said "directly from a company in the primary supply chain of the shoe company" that the shoes were from further up the supply chain, like a factory, rather than further down. My mistake. Even if the product were from an authorized retailer, I don't see how the shoe company's request to Amazon was illegal. Restraint of trade means that contracts restricting commerce are in some cases unenforceable. It doesn't mean that Amazon is compelled to do business with the reseller if they would rather prioritize their relationship with the shoe company.
- edoo 8y agoIf Amazon had terminated their listings without any cause or even because of competition agreements it probably would have been legal. Since it was in direct compliance with an illegal demand and Amazon stated as such they probably doomed themselves. Judges tend to look very poorly on large companies ramrodding the small guys. The small business wasn't prepared to spend $50k+ just initiating the process and went on with their business model.